Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
On 30 April 2012 22:56, Roger Bamkin roger.bam...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi guys, I'm interested in wifis. We have some concerns about the legalities of allowing anonymous users to use a free wifi system without giving their email addresses or agreeing to terms and conditions. Can't tell you where - but you might guess Does anyone... Know what the legal position is and any important guidelines that may apply? Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the ISP's terms of service are the most obvious. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
On 1 May 2012 10:06, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 April 2012 22:56, Roger Bamkin roger.bam...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi guys, I'm interested in wifis. We have some concerns about the legalities of allowing anonymous users to use a free wifi system without giving their email addresses or agreeing to terms and conditions. Can't tell you where - but you might guess Does anyone... Know what the legal position is and any important guidelines that may apply? Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the ISP's terms of service are the most obvious. Talk to a lawyer, that's the best advice. The misuse of open access points is not well tried in law - but you are certainly responsible for its use. You may also be required to log certain information about the users (which I believe is the main reason most ask for an email address). And as Geni mentions, sometimes the ISP you are using mandates certain things - such as protected Wifi. So you need to review that carefully. More than anything it depends on the context; if you are talking about a small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things are more complex. To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a non-trivial technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required. But; ask someone with relevant legal expertise. Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: More than anything it depends on the context; if you are talking about a small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things are more complex. To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a non-trivial technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required. I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one): http://hackdaymanifesto.com/ - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: More than anything it depends on the context; if you are talking about a small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things are more complex. To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a non-trivial technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required. I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one): http://hackdaymanifesto.com/ As one of the Hack Day Manifesto drafting cabal, I'll note why we didn't... Firstly, because we aren't lawyers. If you are a lawyer, the Hack Day Manifesto is on Github, and, as we say on Wikipedia, anyone can edit. Secondly, because what we do know about the law on wifi, it's actually very difficult to know what is required. When the Digital Economy Act was up for debate, one of the provisions, if I recall correctly, would require closing of open wifi following repeated copyright infringement complaints, but whether that is going to be required is something I believe we are still waiting upon from the official Ofcom guidance (not to go political, but having a law where you basically pass it without reading it, then have someone else work out exactly what it means is a hermeneutic strategy that should make postmodernists very happy and anyone who values transparency and deliberation not so happy). There are still some very strange questions about whether or not using a weak protection system for wifi would count - WEP is now trivially crackable, and WPA rather than WPA2 is also trivial to crack... requiring WPA2 means certain older devices can't connect to wifi. It'd certainly be useful for everybody involved if we could have some lawyers work out exactly what the current civil and criminal penalties and issues of concern are around open wifi usage. I say that as someone who lives right out in the countryside and, partly on principle, keeps his wifi completely open. Why? Because I believe that if you should be unfortunate enough to find yourself standing outside my house, the least you should be able to do is check Google Maps to find your way to where you are going. Given that we have really bad GPS reception, almost no mobile reception, certainly no 3G reception, I see almost no benefit in preventing people from leeching a little bandwidth from me... on the basis that if I were momentarily outside their house, I'd really like to be able to do likewise. Share and share alike, be the change you want to see and all that. Security expert Bruce Schneier does similarly: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html Of course, if some bastard tracks me down, camps outside my house and uses my wifi to upload his kiddy porn stash, nuclear bomb construction instructions or the contents of their 'Lady Gaga' CD-RW to Wikileaks, and I end up in jail, that would suck quite considerably. Hence why having some guidance from actual lawyers would be quite useful. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
On 1 May 2012 11:24, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one): http://hackdaymanifesto.com/ As one of the Hack Day Manifesto drafting cabal, I'll note why we didn't... [snip sensible stuff] The key takeaway I got is talk to your ISP. In practical terms, I expect a one-day event of a defined nature done by nice people of social standing (e.g. WMUK) should be able to get away with quite a lot, even if a miscreant might happen to be hanging around outside just near enough to get reception and violate copyright. Even if record companies would prefer everyone, including educational charities, to regard the internet with fear and loathing. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK communications review - Wiki page created for input
Hello again, Just a reminder of the below. Please do take a look and share your thoughts on the article and discussion page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_communications_review Many thanks, Stevie On 23/04/2012 14:59, Stevie Benton wrote: Hello everyone, There's a need for a thorough review of Wikimedia UK's communications. To this end I've created a page on the UK Wiki - http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_communications_review - as a starting point for suggestions, comments, ideas, feedback and so on. Please do get involved as it's really important that everyone who wishes to input into this process has the chance to do so. I've made some preliminary suggestions and comments to get us started but do, please, comment or amend as you see fit. If you think something is worth further debate, please use the discussion page. Thank you in advance for all of your help, Stevie -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
Forgive the scathing cynicism, but we're governed by retards who I wouldn't trust to change a 13-amp fuse! Let alone actually realise that 99% of household equipment could get by with a 1-amp, or less, fuse. I _know_ my local WiFi ;-) (SSID: xx, Key: not telling). I also know that WEP is so trivially broken that, pardon the pun, there's an app for that. WPA is not a great deal better. I've broken a couple just to prove the point. If you're planning to run an open point, do it and be damned. If this is a 'public service', and some media mogul tries to sue you then half the country would chip in to a legal fighting fund. Sadly, Wikimedia UK has to be 'polite' to politicians; I suspect David Gerard would gleefully join me in setting about them with a clue-by-four, and tell them, bluntly, to defer to the likes of Sir Tim Berners-Lee on what is good for the Internet. The Digital Economy Act should be overturned. The Limp-Dems promised to do so - until they ended up in a coalition with Cameron. Now, I'm dealing with repeated alarmist emails from 38 Degrees about plans to grant the police and security services carte blanche snooping powers. I could say I told you so, and you could search for INDECT on Wikinews. I, very infrequently, chip in on this list; and, the above is 'quite a rant'. However, I'm of the opinion that WM-UK should be an active advocate for a free and unfettered Internet. Thankfully my own hacking exploits predate the Computer Misuse Act. But, when I'm back online at home, I'll be joining the mayhem in running a Tor node, and whoever in the police told Cameron they'd like more powers can explain how they can't crack real encryption. Brian McNeil -- Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcn...@o2.co.uk Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. Original Message Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi? From: Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org Date: Tue, May 01, 2012 11:24 am To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: More than anything it depends on the context; if you are talking about a small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things are more complex. To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a non-trivial technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required. I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one): http://hackdaymanifesto.com/ As one of the Hack Day Manifesto drafting cabal, I'll note why we didn't... Firstly, because we aren't lawyers. If you are a lawyer, the Hack Day Manifesto is on Github, and, as we say on Wikipedia, anyone can edit. Secondly, because what we do know about the law on wifi, it's actually very difficult to know what is required. When the Digital Economy Act was up for debate, one of the provisions, if I recall correctly, would require closing of open wifi following repeated copyright infringement complaints, but whether that is going to be required is something I believe we are still waiting upon from the official Ofcom guidance (not to go political, but having a law where you basically pass it without reading it, then have someone else work out exactly what it means is a hermeneutic strategy that should make postmodernists very happy and anyone who values transparency and deliberation not so happy). There are still some very strange questions about whether or not using a weak protection system for wifi would count - WEP is now trivially crackable, and WPA rather than WPA2 is also trivial to crack... requiring WPA2 means certain older devices can't connect to wifi. It'd certainly be useful for everybody involved if we could have some lawyers work out exactly what the current civil and criminal penalties and issues of concern are around open wifi usage. I say that as someone who lives right out in the countryside and, partly on principle, keeps his wifi completely open. Why? Because I believe that if you should be unfortunate enough to find yourself standing outside my house, the least you should be able to do is check Google Maps to find your way to where you are going. Given that we have really bad GPS reception, almost no mobile reception, certainly no 3G reception, I see almost no benefit in preventing people from leeching a little bandwidth from me... on the basis that if I were momentarily outside their house, I'd really like to be able to do likewise. Share and share alike, be the change you want to see and all that. Security expert Bruce Schneier does similarly:
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Office] Wikimedia UK communications review - Wiki page created for input
To expand on this a little: this review will affect how we talk to the UK list, our members, the general UK Wikimedia community, etc. It's vitally important that everyone puts their views on here: how could we communicate better? Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 1 May 2012 12:15, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello again, Just a reminder of the below. Please do take a look and share your thoughts on the article and discussion page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/**2012_communications_reviewhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_communications_review Many thanks, Stevie On 23/04/2012 14:59, Stevie Benton wrote: Hello everyone, There's a need for a thorough review of Wikimedia UK's communications. To this end I've created a page on the UK Wiki - http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/**2012_communications_reviewhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_communications_review- as a starting point for suggestions, comments, ideas, feedback and so on. Please do get involved as it's really important that everyone who wishes to input into this process has the chance to do so. I've made some preliminary suggestions and comments to get us started but do, please, comment or amend as you see fit. If you think something is worth further debate, please use the discussion page. Thank you in advance for all of your help, Stevie -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 __**_ Office mailing list off...@wikimedia.org.uk http://lists.wikimedia.org.uk/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**officehttp://lists.wikimedia.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/office ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi?
You have again exceed my expectations. I knew this was a tricky area and you have mapped it's boundaries and key features. Same as I would have got from three trips to a lawyer . THX On May 1, 2012 2:10 PM, brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org wrote: Forgive the scathing cynicism, but we're governed by retards who I wouldn't trust to change a 13-amp fuse! Let alone actually realise that 99% of household equipment could get by with a 1-amp, or less, fuse. I _know_ my local WiFi ;-) (SSID: xx, Key: not telling). I also know that WEP is so trivially broken that, pardon the pun, there's an app for that. WPA is not a great deal better. I've broken a couple just to prove the point. If you're planning to run an open point, do it and be damned. If this is a 'public service', and some media mogul tries to sue you then half the country would chip in to a legal fighting fund. Sadly, Wikimedia UK has to be 'polite' to politicians; I suspect David Gerard would gleefully join me in setting about them with a clue-by-four, and tell them, bluntly, to defer to the likes of Sir Tim Berners-Lee on what is good for the Internet. The Digital Economy Act should be overturned. The Limp-Dems promised to do so - until they ended up in a coalition with Cameron. Now, I'm dealing with repeated alarmist emails from 38 Degrees about plans to grant the police and security services carte blanche snooping powers. I could say I told you so, and you could search for INDECT on Wikinews. I, very infrequently, chip in on this list; and, the above is 'quite a rant'. However, I'm of the opinion that WM-UK should be an active advocate for a free and unfettered Internet. Thankfully my own hacking exploits predate the Computer Misuse Act. But, when I'm back online at home, I'll be joining the mayhem in running a Tor node, and whoever in the police told Cameron they'd like more powers can explain how they can't crack real encryption. Brian McNeil -- Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcn...@o2.co.uk Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. Original Message Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] So who knows about their local wifi? From: Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org Date: Tue, May 01, 2012 11:24 am To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: More than anything it depends on the context; if you are talking about a small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things are more complex. To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a non-trivial technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required. I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one): http://hackdaymanifesto.com/ As one of the Hack Day Manifesto drafting cabal, I'll note why we didn't... Firstly, because we aren't lawyers. If you are a lawyer, the Hack Day Manifesto is on Github, and, as we say on Wikipedia, anyone can edit. Secondly, because what we do know about the law on wifi, it's actually very difficult to know what is required. When the Digital Economy Act was up for debate, one of the provisions, if I recall correctly, would require closing of open wifi following repeated copyright infringement complaints, but whether that is going to be required is something I believe we are still waiting upon from the official Ofcom guidance (not to go political, but having a law where you basically pass it without reading it, then have someone else work out exactly what it means is a hermeneutic strategy that should make postmodernists very happy and anyone who values transparency and deliberation not so happy). There are still some very strange questions about whether or not using a weak protection system for wifi would count - WEP is now trivially crackable, and WPA rather than WPA2 is also trivial to crack... requiring WPA2 means certain older devices can't connect to wifi. It'd certainly be useful for everybody involved if we could have some lawyers work out exactly what the current civil and criminal penalties and issues of concern are around open wifi usage. I say that as someone who lives right out in the countryside and, partly on principle, keeps his wifi completely open. Why? Because I believe that if you should be unfortunate enough to find yourself standing outside my house, the least you should be able to do is check Google Maps to find your way to where you are going. Given that we have really bad GPS reception, almost no mobile reception, certainly no 3G reception, I
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Olympic mascots on Commons
OGL? Is it? Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 1 May 2012 16:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: I proudly present, those ghastly Olympics mascots, now available on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympic_mascots.jpg I shall now await being sued by Lord Coe and the LOGOC and/or a massive deletion debate on Commons. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Olympic mascots on Commons
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply: Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial... Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 1 May 2012 16:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: I proudly present, those ghastly Olympics mascots, now available on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympic_mascots.jpg I shall now await being sued by Lord Coe and the LOGOC and/or a massive deletion debate on Commons. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Olympic mascots on Commons
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote: Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply: Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial... Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL. http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible. The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Olympic mascots on Commons
Fantastic Tom! 10/10. I withdraw my earlier nonsensical question. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 1 May 2012 16:51, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote: Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply: Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial... Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL. http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible. The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Olympic mascots on Commons
I imagine the mascots are trademarks, and that the OGL doesn't release the trademarks as well or does it? Chris On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fantastic Tom! 10/10. I withdraw my earlier nonsensical question. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 1 May 2012 16:51, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote: Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply: Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial... Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL. http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible. The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
